this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
672 points (98.0% liked)

memes

16638 readers
2852 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Rooskie91@discuss.online 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's not really a salient argument. Can you think of even one place where it would be appropriate to say there aren't enough humans? Besides that, humans and wolves have completely different impact on the environment.

Additionally, after the advent of agriculture and industrialization, I think there is a fair argument to be made that humans are no longer capable of living an environmentally harmonious life. Think of all the resource depletion and fossil fuel consumption required just for you to post that argument on the internet.

Until we regain the ability for, not just individuals, but entire societies to live in harmony with the environment, I believe there is a strong argument for reducing your impact by not having children.

All I'm saying is that there's a logical breakdown at play. Any argument in favor of "the environment" had to be based on the value of individual life. I'm not even saying that we shouldn't be moderating our population growth, we should. I'm just saying the environmentally friendly angle is a logically strange argument, from first principles.